Fallout Studios Forums

Nuclear, but I'm really just waiting for the fusion reactors to go online

Nightshadow, on 1 Jul 2007, 11:03, said:

...and ultra-tough concrete walls that pulverizes shit 'n stuffs to dust.

PORN

Razgriz 1, on 3 Jul 2007, 3:32, said:

*fixed*

I'm going for nuclear, it brings up much less bad things than coal powerplants.

Nuclear.

Coal produces 2 billion tons of waste each year whereas nuclear power only produces 2 thousand tons of waste each year, even taking into account of the fact the nukes only provide 10% of our power, ther is a huge difference, and from an engineering point of view nuclear waste is much easier to dispose of.

They are virtually impregnable.

Though they are more much more expensive to built and fuel up for the first time, they are much cheaper to run, because coal fired plants need new fuel daily, nuclear plant go years without refueling.

Fast Breeder reactors could give nuclear energy a big boost.

The Outsider, on 18 Aug 2007, 0:21, said:

Really?
I remember reading about this a while ago, but this is the best article I could find on it:
Greenpeace protesters climb onto roof of Dutch nuclear power plant
Again,
More Greenpeace

If these nutcases can manage to get into those facilities, I'd hardly say other nutcases intending to do real harm would have much more trouble.

Nuclear or Coal you say?

What about a relocation.. 500km away?

In here we have 2 nuclear powerplant thats catering energy for 60% of our countrey. Slovakia has 6mil. people. Enel has a good business with them but it was be clean.

Nerdsturm, on 23 Aug 2007, 1:55, said:

o rly?

still, I don't see any damage done and if that is the worst you can find then that just shows how safe they are.

Nuclear. Sure Depleted Uranium isn't that healthy, but they transport them in train cars that can be hit by a fire bomb attack and survive intact. Also, Chernobyl has almost no safety features, and the Soviet Union didn't really care about the impact the meltdown would have on the environment.

On a interesting side note, the first Nuclear 'meltdown' was in Chalk River Canada, 1952.

Nuclear.

Yes, theres the point out about how the uranium rods will be disposed of safely but frankly, look at the bonuses! The reactors are safe to the environment in the terms that they dont give off emissions. I believe the only thing that comes out is the steam from the cooling chamber of the reactor. Not only that, but the power output by the reactors FAR exceeds those of many coal power plants combined.

Frankly, until we discover something to replace our beloved petroleum, i believe that nuclear power plants will greatly help shoulder the burden.

Nuclear. The closer I am to radioactive stuff the happier I am.

The Euro versions of the plants are horrible. The US ones are the nice ones, and greenpeace are a bunch of idiots. It will be about a year until we can actually get rid of depleted uranium. We will be able to actually reuse most of it, seeing as how the majority of it is still uranium. We will be able to strip all the other elements off of it, and use those separately if we feel the need. Like strategia said, Can't wait for fusion.Its a big bally thing that makes all our problems go boom.

pyrobob, on 16 Sep 2007, 3:23, said:

Oh great, now our two favorite Russians will come in here and complain about how Russian plants are better.

Anyways, I am much more partial to solar or geothermal than either of these. To many nuclear plants leaves to much waste, and coal is very polluting.
Edited by Høbbês 1098, 13 October 2007 - 05:02.

Høbbês 1098, on 13 Oct 2007, 8:01, said:

Actually the best thing to do with nuclear waste is to put it in a bomb and detonate it high up in the atmosphere...plus a nuke plant doesn't produce much waste.

The problem with geothermal is that most places on earth don't have the location necessary for this.

As for solar, good, but you need a large area to cover to get a high enough efficiency.

So nuclear fission is best until fusion arrives. (or anything else that is 100% clean and efficient)

Oh yes, detonating a nuke in the high atmosphere is the best thing to do.

Nuclear?


Spent nuclear fuel? Re-enrich them and there, cheap and relatively with less waste than coal.
Alternatively, put it on the moon.

Zancloufer27, on 25 Aug 2007, 17:04, said:

Traitor! We are supposed to hide all our dirty little secrets ! Like the invention of napalm and the testing of agent orange and then letting people live near those sites.

Or the funding of a "mind control" experiment that messed up peoples brains (note those people volunteered on a joint CIA and Canadian project).

Oh and yes I think nuclear power is much better regardless of what others say. Hydro power is good too. We power a good portion of the Eastern US states with it.

Also shreds fish, as the eco-nuts point out, i swear if they got their way, we'd be living in huts and hunting leaves, well we can't hunt animals

Fun fact: China is looking to rely more on coal than on nuclear powerplants in the foreseeable future. (Strange thing is, Leang's name didn't come up anywhere )

i voted for the nuclear powerplant... its clean and safe...
Wind farms are freaking loud...

MYLO

Nuclear, ofcourse. I despise the filth of Coals.

And people complaining about the Radiation coming from Nuclear Waste should first know the chances of that being dangerous to them are extremely low, while breathing polluted air is inevitable.

By far the best powerplants are Hydro facilities. No pollution, minimal residual heat and extreme lots of power. But sadly that's just as limited to location as geothermal plants are, and those last ones heavily take part in the global warming as well.

The Outsider, on 25 Aug 2007, 6:44, said:

Greenpeace are nut jobs! But even a nutjob wouldn't wander into a nuke reactor and start hitting it with a hammer. Wouldn't be a great advert for making the environment better would it!? Leaving a 50 sq mile area that was uninhabitable to every living creature for about 2000 years. They are more interested in whales.

Nuclear is the way to go. Don't see why we don't stick the waste in a rocket and fling it into space!? Then it's pretty much perfect.

HAHAHA! Oh wow. Like it's very cheap to do that, Mister.

Shuttles go up regularly. You would rather have your great -great grandchildren build a house on top of it I suppose?!? So 100 years from now the Waris lineage might have two heads

I doubt that the cost of a fully up to code nuclear waste storage facility with full monitoring equipment and security measures costs much less to tbh.
Edited by Wizard, 19 November 2007 - 13:39.

And shuttles carry how much? ANd can they carry them to somehwere safe so that ti does not re-entry, let alone orbit the planet.

Ok, I'm a little tired now, but here's a very very simple piece of information.

In the UK, where our first gen reactors were designed to make bombs primarily and electricity second, our current method of moving spent nuclear material uses canisters which can take huge amounts of punishment, 200mph rail crashes without leaking. Waste problems are peptuated by the media, and il-informed, groups who spend no time on research. Yes when nuclear power was new it blew up a couple of times, don' tell me the human race turned away from fire becuase one of two people got burned.

It is safe, it is clean, and it means we no longer are subject to potentially unstable suppliers of fuel, remember what Russia did to the Ukraine? Whereas Australia and Canada are quite stable and linked to the UK, thus less likely to try and cripple our economy.